NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently in forums regarding freedom of speech. This made me think about the whole Don Imus thing and more. Especially FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. That was a contriversal case so this is a 2 poll in 1 special.

First I want to know, Do you think Don Imus should have been fired? and Do you think the government has the right to censor TV and radio?

1st amendmant- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So you can choose more than 1 option 1 for each question.

First I want to know, Do you think Don Imus should have been fired? I don't see how that can be debated, the advertisers pulled out. What network will put on a show that it can't afford to pay for?

and Do you think the government has the right to censor TV and radio?No.

First I want to know, Do you think Don Imus should have been fired?


Absolutely.


... and Do you think the government has the right to censor TV and radio?


How is this question relevant to the Don Imus case? My understanding is that radio listeners (i.e. customers) complained to CBS. In the interests of not insulting, alienating and thus losing their customers, CBS canceled the show. Consumers made a market demand, and business responded. Government censorship has nothing to do with it.


1st amendmant- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Show where Congress had anything to do with Imus' firing.

Don't make me pull out Morbo on you again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12657868&postcount=121).

no, don imus shouldnt have been fired. what he said was no where near bad enough to warrant losing his job. i certainly hope his lawsuit is successful and he gets paid off for the remainder of his contract.

when it comes to censoring the airwaves, im of 2 minds. as a supporter of free speech, i think that (almost) anything should be OK given that what doesnt have the support of the public will fail for lack of ratings. if i dont like what is being said or shown, ill turn the channel. if enough people turn the channel, the show wont continue.

however, as an old fart, i know that if the rules were changed and anything DID go, there would be nothing on TV that didnt either offend me or annoy me with its sugary morality. i likes my tv. i dont want to have to stop watching it.

First I want to know, Do you think Don Imus should have been fired?

Yes.

and Do you think the government has the right to censor TV and radio?

Yes. I'm against all the "OMG obscenity!" bullshit, but I don't think bigots should be given free reign to promote their views on television or radio. Rather than promote a tolerant and pluralistic society, that sort of "tolerance" merely reinforces patterns of exclusion and marginalization that deprive members of society of full access to its goods.

no, don imus shouldnt have been fired. what he said was no where near bad enough to warrant losing his job. i certainly hope his lawsuit is successful and he gets paid off for the remainder of his contract.
Quoted for truth. They appear to have violated the terms of his contract in that his contract required a written warning for anything that crossed the line, and then firing if he chose to ignore the warning and continue to say the offensive thing.

when it comes to censoring the airwaves, im of 2 minds. as a supporter of free speech, i think that (almost) anything should be OK given that what doesnt have the support of the public will fail for lack of ratings. if i dont like what is being said or shown, ill turn the channel. if enough people turn the channel, the show wont continue.

however, as an old fart, i know that if the rules were changed and anything DID go, there would be nothing on TV that didnt either offend me or annoy me with its sugary morality. i likes my tv. i dont want to have to stop watching it.


George Carlin said it best. There are two knobs on the radio. One lets you change the channel, and the other lets you turn it off. Exercise your right not to listen to things which offend you!

Don't make me pull out Morbo on you again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12657868&postcount=121).

Nobody wants somebody whose only "argument" is image spam.

Nobody wants somebody whose only "argument" is image spam.

because frankly one can only explain the first amendment so....many....times before it gets old.

In fact the very thread that the OP already was posting in had a good explanation for him.

Why would I explain what has already been explained?

Nobody wants somebody whose only "argument" is image spam.

When people don't get already simple explanations then one has to resort to visual aids.

I was recently in forums regarding freedom of speech. This made me think about the whole Don Imus thing and more. Especially FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. That was a contriversal case so this is a 2 poll in 1 special.

First I want to know, Do you think Don Imus should have been fired? and Do you think the government has the right to censor TV and radio?

1st amendmant- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So you can choose more than 1 option 1 for each question.

First off, the government did nothing to get Imus off the air. It was a financial decision on the part of the network that aired his show to bow the the financial threats levied by some of the sponsors. Private industry is a far bigger threat to free speech in this country than the government.

As for whether or not he should have been pulled off the air. He should absolutely have been canceled due to pitiful ratings as the result of a mature radio audience that demands more from on-air personalities than ignorance and vitriol.

Unfortunately, we don't have that. A lot of assholes listen to the radio. A fair market would dictate that assholes who listen to the radio will have assholes to listen too. Young assholes listen to Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony. Old ones listen to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, but no longer Don Imus.

George Carlin said it best. There are two knobs on the radio. One lets you change the channel, and the other lets you turn it off. Exercise your right not to listen to things which offend you!

I rather expected that sentence to go "two kinds of knobs, one kind that's attached to the radio, and one kind that's broadcast to it."

I was recently in forums regarding freedom of speech. This made me think about the whole Don Imus thing and more. Especially FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. That was a contriversal case so this is a 2 poll in 1 special.

First I want to know, Do you think Don Imus should have been fired? and Do you think the government has the right to censor TV and radio?

1st amendmant- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So you can choose more than 1 option 1 for each question.

No he should not be fired. He was a Jackass, but he should STILL not be fired. Anyone offended by him is an idiot.

No he should not be fired. He was a Jackass, but he should STILL not be fired. Anyone offended by him is an idiot.

Why is anyone offended by him an idiot? Oh, I get it.

Calling someone a 'Nappy Headed Ho' isn't something to be offended by.

Shut up, if I was a black woman, i'd be offended by that too.

Why is anyone offended by him an idiot? Oh, I get it.

Calling someone a 'Nappy Headed Ho' isn't something to be offended by.

Shut up, if I was a black woman, i'd be offended by that too.

Well, it's naturally an insult. It SHOULD definately offend the person he directed it at, but not so many people. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bone but names will never hurt me"?

Why is anyone offended by him an idiot? Oh, I get it.

Calling someone a 'Nappy Headed Ho' isn't something to be offended by.

Shut up, if I was a black woman, i'd be offended by that too.

Aren't black women sort of used to being called hoes? I can't claim to know, but I thought they pretty much get that all the time in the popular media.

Myself, I've never liked Don Imus. Too liberal, not entertaining, mumbles too much. Meh to him.

Myself, I've never liked Don Imus. Too liberal, not entertaining, mumbles too much. Meh to him.

Right. Just because he was an idiiot, doesn't mean he should be fired. I mean when ya look the presidents we've been getting, and see THEY didn't get fired, who could disagree?

Well, it's naturally an insult. It SHOULD definately offend the person he directed it at, but not so many people. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bone but names will never hurt me"?

I don't think that rule applies when someone calls you a WHORE!

That is what Ho means, right? Its short for whore.

And who are you to say who should be offended by something?

Aren't black women sort of used to being called hoes? I can't claim to know, but I thought they pretty much get that all the time in the popular media.

Myself, I've never liked Don Imus. Too liberal, not entertaining, mumbles too much. Meh to him.

Ah, so if someone calls you a whore enough, you should just accept it?

Right. Just because he was an idiiot, doesn't mean he should be fired. I mean when ya look the presidents we've been getting, and see THEY didn't get fired, who could disagree?

I'm not saying he should have gotten fired. I'm saying that you shouldn't assume that all peolple that are offended because they got called a whore are idiots.

I don't think that rule applies when someone calls you a WHORE!

That is what Ho means, right? Its short for whore.

And who are you to say who should be offended by something?

Me personally I'm a man, so I'd ask the guy to fight. But a woman is different I suppose, so....

Ah, so if someone calls you a whore enough, you should just accept it?

You shouldn't accept the truth of the statement, but if it's culturally common that black women are called "ho" by black men, well...

It's not that they should enjoy living under the cloud of being "ho"s, but rather, that they should understand that aping black slang is aping black slang, rather than directly insulting them. Still, I'm not an expert on black culture and really, the appropriateness of "ho" depends on how it's used and how frequently, which I can't comment on, especially as someone who doesn't listen to "hip-hop."

Right. Just because he was an idiiot, doesn't mean he should be fired. I mean when ya look the presidents we've been getting, and see THEY didn't get fired, who could disagree?

Well, if he had been elected to a term of office, he should have been allowed to carry it out. However, a contract with CBS doesn't quite amount to that. :p If advertisers stand to lose money and reputation due to his words, he must account for it, certainly.

I'm not saying he should have gotten fired. I'm saying that you shouldn't assume that all peolple that are offended because they got called a whore are idiots.

It IS a random insult. People have said a LOT worse to me, and I was only mildly-pissed. It's when they KEEP doing it and I can't fight them that I get really annoyed. But I never REALLY get "offended".

You shouldn't accept the truth of the statement, but if it's culturally common that black women are called "ho" by black men, well...

It's not that they should enjoy living under the cloud of being "ho"s, but rather, that they should understand that aping black slang is aping black slang, rather than directly insulting them. Still, I'm not an expert on black culture and really, the appropriateness of "ho" depends on how it's used and how frequently, which I can't comment on, especially as someone who doesn't listen to "hip-hop."

umm...I don't think calling someone a ho is okay, regardless of your culture.

Just because one group of people says its 'cool' to call women a ho makes it acceptable?

He shouldn't have aped it, no one should ape that stupid shit.

Just because some ignorant black guys & 'popular culture' find it okay to call black women ho's, doesn't make it right. And i'm arguing that someone who is offended by being called a ho doesnt automatically make that person an idiot, as 'Parkus' posted earlier.

umm...I don't think calling someone a ho is okay, regardless of your culture.

Just because one group of people says its 'cool' to call women a ho makes it acceptable?

He shouldn't have aped it, no one should ape that stupid shit.

Just because some ignorant black guys & 'popular culture' find it okay to call black women ho's, doesn't make it right. And i'm arguing that someone who is offended by being called a ho doesnt automatically make that person an idiot, as 'Parkus' posted earlier.

Everyone rails against popular culture. But sometimes, the best way to change it is to lampoon it, and you can't do that without mentioning it. Of course, Imus might not have done a well-thought out send-up of it, and from the looks of it his joke was crude. But I wouldn't try to designate "ho" as being off-limits to anyone.

It IS a random insult. People have said a LOT worse to me, and I was only mildly-pissed. It's when they KEEP doing it and I can't fight them that I get really annoyed. But I never REALLY get "offended".

Good for YOU. We aren't talking about YOU. How dare you say that any offended by being called a Whore is an Idiot? Thats what I'm really taking issue with here: Calling someone a Whore is very insulting, and I don't care how you would handle being called a whore, I really don't.

You shouldn't belittle people because they reacted to it the way they did.

Everyone rails against popular culture. But sometimes, the best way to change it is to lampoon it, and you can't do that without mentioning it. Of course, Imus might not have done a well-thought out send-up of it, and from the looks of it his joke was crude. But I wouldn't try to designate "ho" as being off-limits to anyone.

I'm not railing against popular culture, I'm angry Parkus stated that anyone offended by being called a whore is an idiot.

Hell no, he shouldnt have been fired.

The sponsors pulling out is bullshit.
Getting new sponsors for a popular radio show, and one that is also broadcast on a major news network is easy, theres always people who will pay you to hawk thier shit....everywhere.

This was a statement and an attempt to be "pc".
He used a slight racial slur, and people throw a hissy fit.
This brings "bad press" on MSNBC, and they in turn fired Imus to distance themselves from "The Big Bad Racist".

Chris Rock can call people "niggers" and make millions of dollars from it, but Don Imus makes a lame attempt at levity, with a MUCH softer choice of words,clearly with no malice involved, and suddenly hes a KKK Grand Dragon?

What the hell kind of double standard is that?

If Don Imus was black, would this be different?
You bet your ass it would be.
Why, it would have been "charming" to many of us, wouldnt it?

A word is nothing more than a collection of letters.
It has no more power than what we give it.
Names only hurt us, when we want to sue someone who used them against.

Also, people ignore the context in wich the term "nappy headed Hoes" was used.
Imus was complimenting the team on thier toughness, and determination, in fact, using the term as a compliment.
"Dont mess with them, thems are some nappy headed hoes!"

Again, if chris rock has said it, you would have laughed.
Imus says it, and hes a racist.
Aside from the fact that Rock is ten times as funny as Imus and can tell a better joke.....whats the difference?

The difference was Al Sharpton.
Sharpton, who seeks every damned opportinuty to crusade against anything he sees as a slight, and make every molehill into a mountain.
Does Al Sharpton crusade against Rock everytime Rock performs?
No.

So whos really the racist?

My own feelings about Witch Hunter Sharpton and Jackson aside, I'm really not so sure the Imus debacle would've reached the peak it did if they hadn't gotten involved.

More likely, the team, if they so chose, would've contacted the station, demanded an apology, and Imus would've been pressured into giving one. At least, that's the impression I got from the team.

Where it would've gone from there is anybody's guess. No, I don't think a firing was warranted, but that's what happened and in the end it doesn't really affect me either way. He said something stupid, some agitators blew the situation up, and a news-slow Easter weekend was livened up a bit at the expense of several people.

Private industry is a far bigger threat to free speech in this country than the government.Ah, a new sig. Thank you, Domici.

I do not think that Don Imus should have been fired. I do not think that people should be fired from their jobs for comments that they make unless these comments are threats of violence of encouragement or something along those lines.

I think that the government has the responsibility to regulate broadcast media. The government has no business regulating cable or other unlimited communication media. If there are only so many bandwidths out there for broadcasting, then it makes sense that the people should have a say in its allocation. Obviously, we need to reserve some for navigation and military purposes. This leaves some for general public use. If the people get a say in the allocation of a limited resource, it also suggests that they should control its content. We should control content of broadcast media through our government.

Technology has advanced in ways that I cannoty explain that allows unlimited radio and television through cable and the internet. I am not sure that radio is the right word for the radio aspect of the new technology because I think that this is wholely independent of radio bandwidths. Since there is no allocation resposibiliies of government here, I do not se why the people have any right to direct its content aside from banning use for illegal purposes such as espionage, communication and coordinaton with enemies of the USA, etc.

In no way should Imus have been sacked. Conservatives in this country, who are usually really big on censorship and propriety, and the PC left all clamored for his ouster. Thing is, why not let the so-called "free market" decide? COnservatives have wet dreams about the free market all the time until it's time to legislate against something they don't like. They can't have it both ways. Let Imus stay and if advertisers pull their ads and people don't listen as a result of what he said, THEN you can say that you fired him because "the audience has spoken."

Anything else is hypocrisy.

In no way should Imus have been sacked. Conservatives in this country, who are usually really big on censorship and propriety, and the PC left all clamored for his ouster. Thing is, why not let the so-called "free market" decide? .

From the looks of it, it was the free market that decided. Where do the conservatives come in?

From the looks of it, it was the free market that decided. Where do the conservatives come in?

The free market decided? In less than a week? No. Paranoid executives decided after getting pressure from various special interest groups. The conservatives in charge of the FCC should have encouraged the broadcaster to let him continue and see how his ratings did. Instead, they pulled a Bush and struck pre-emptively, hoping to avoid any splash damage from venom directed at Imus.

Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, learn the difference between government sanctioned punishment, and a private corporation independently firing an employee.

The first amendment protects against the first, not the second.

The free market decided? In less than a week? No. Paranoid executives decided after getting pressure from various special interest groups. The conservatives in charge of the FCC should have encouraged the broadcaster to let him continue and see how his ratings did. Instead, they pulled a Bush and struck pre-emptively, hoping to avoid any splash damage from venom directed at Imus.

Mm. I thought it was various big sponsers of the show which pulled funding. Mind you, all I know about the issue was garnered from this thread.

It is no business of the conservatives in charge of the FCC to encourage the producers of any show to keep running if the producers see fit to discontinue it.

Did the FCC do anything to block or cancel the show? I am confused by your last sentence.

Mm. I thought it was various big sponsers of the show which pulled funding. Mind you, all I know about the issue was garnered from this thread.

It is no business of the conservatives in charge of the FCC to encourage the producers of any show to keep running if the producers see fit to discontinue it.

Did the FCC do anything to block or cancel the show? I am confused by your last sentence.

The FCC did not get involved, nor did any government agency. A bunch of people led by Al "I am outraged!" Sharpton threatened to boycott the station's advertizers, some advertizers were talking about pulling their ads. CBS radio and MSNBC panicked and thought that a boycott was actually going to work for the first time in like fifty years and dropped his show.

The FCC did not get involved, nor did any government agency. A bunch of people led by Al "I am outraged!" Sharpton threatened to boycott the station's advertizers, some advertizers were talking about pulling their ads. CBS radio and MSNBC panicked and thought that a boycott was actually going to work for the first time in like fifty years and dropped his show.

There y'go. Thanks.

My bad for invoking the FCC (though I firmly believe that they're fuckers, anyway).

i don't think it was so much about free speech, just he was being extremly unprofessional.

i don't think it was so much about free speech, just he was being extremly unprofessional.

Making it really different from any of his other broadcasts how?

First of all, since when is "nappy-headed hos" hate speech of any kind? Secondly, where's the hue and cry over the average rap artist, who denegrates women far more savagely and ignorantly than Imus EVER could, and whose language Imus was actually parroting?

Out of curiosity, would "nappy-headed young women" have been okay? What if Imus had made it a similie? "They looked like nappy-headed hoes," or "they bear a strong resemblance to some nappy-headed hos I once met."

In short, where's the line?

First of all, since when is "nappy-headed hos" hate speech of any kind? Secondly, where's the hue and cry over the average rap artist, who denegrates women far more savagely and ignorantly than Imus EVER could, and whose language Imus was actually parroting?

Out of curiosity, would "nappy-headed young women" have been okay? What if Imus had made it a similie? "They looked like nappy-headed hoes," or "they bear a strong resemblance to some nappy-headed hos I once met."

In short, where's the line?

To quote Witch Hunter Jackson (or Sharpton, I can't remember which):

"'Nappy' is racial"

To quote Witch Hunter Jackson (or Sharpton, I can't remember which):

"'Nappy' is racial"

It's an adjective. How's it racial?

It's an adjective. How's it racial?

Don' ask me. I don't know. I'm of the opinion that those two exploited the situation, Imus, and the Rutgers Team for their own agenda.

He worked for a privately owned company, they essentially have the legal right to fire people for almost any reason. Though i'm sure there are laws regarding firing due to race and stuff. I'm not American, so i'm not going to pretend i know all the fine points of your legal system. It doesn't matter whether people think he should have been fired or not, as far as i know, they were within their legal rights.

As for whether the government should be allowed to censor stuff on the TV or radio, my answer is, absolutely not. We all have the ability to turn the channel, turn the dial, or turn things off. There are v-chips and other parental locks on TVs and ways to password protect websites on computers. Parents need to take responsibility and block the things they don't want their kids to see, if it's that important to them. Most of the TV shows i watch aren't that appropriate for kids. Call me selfish, but i don't want to be deprived of watching the things i like because parents don't want their kids to see them.

Everything in this world is offensive to someone. If we keep banning things, there won't be anything left.

nap·py3

–adjective, -pi·er, -pi·est. 1. covered with nap; downy.
2. (of hair) kinky.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1490–1500; nap2 + -y1]

—Related forms
nap·pi·ness, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

*snip other good point to emphasize better point*

As for whether the government should be allowed to censor stuff on the TV or radio, my answer is, absolutely not. We all have the ability to turn the channel, turn the dial, or turn things off. There are v-chips and other parental locks on TVs and ways to password protect websites on computers. Parents need to take responsibility and block the things they don't want their kids to see, if it's that important to them. Most of the TV shows i watch aren't that appropriate for kids. Call me selfish, but i don't want to be deprived of watching the things i like because parents don't want their kids to see them.

Everything in this world is offensive to someone. If we keep banning things, there won't be anything left.

A-bleeding MEN! QFT!

nap·py3

–adjective, -pi·er, -pi·est. 1. covered with nap; downy.
2. (of hair) kinky.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1490–1500; nap2 + -y1]

—Related forms
nap·pi·ness, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Meh.

Oxford English Dictionary, June 2003:

nappy adv3:

I. General uses.

1. Of cloth: having a nap, downy. Also in extended use.

2. U.S. slang (freq. derogatory.). Of hair, esp. that of a black person: frizzy.

II. Special uses.

3. (Sense 2) nappy-haired, -headed adjs. nappy head U.S. slang (derogatory), a black person.

Also, people ignore the context in wich the term "nappy headed Hoes" was used.
Imus was complimenting the team on thier toughness, and determination, in fact, using the term as a compliment.
"Dont mess with them, thems are some nappy headed hoes!"



Let's look at that "compliment":

DON IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.

SID ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --

BERNARD McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had.

Being called "hard-core hos," called "nappy-headed hos," contrasted with the "girls" that "look cute," and called "Jigaboos" is complimentary?

First of all, since when is "nappy-headed hos" hate speech of any kind?

:rolleyes: :headbang:

"nappy-headed" whores Jigaboos ... think about it.

Secondly, where's the hue and cry over the average rap artist, who denegrates women far more savagely and ignorantly than Imus EVER could, and whose language Imus was actually parroting?


I think you'll find many people, especially black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are critical of the misogyny in rap music.

It's an adjective. How's it racial?

Oxford English Dictionary and the history of the phrase say it is racial. "Nappy-headed" is a derogatory slur for black people.

And you are ignoring the context. Whores. Jigaboos.

Well, it's naturally an insult. It SHOULD definately offend the person he directed it at, but not so many people. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bone but names will never hurt me"?

We learned that little ditty was idiotic once we became adults. Words hurt. All the time. To pretend they don't is to not actually interact with the real world.

We learned that little ditty was idiotic once we became adults. Words hurt. All the time. To pretend they don't is to not actually interact with the real world.

Only to the very thin skinned.

We teach children that little rhyme to show them that names, in fact, cant hurt you if you dont let them.

I assure you, I know all about "the real world", and I usually couldnt care any less what names people call me.
Thats not to say there arent people whom I desire approval from, but thats a pretty small number.

Would YOU care what some crusty old radio jockey said about you, if you were a woman in college, on a basketball team with a winning season, who was on her way to a college degree, and a bright future?

If you would, I would say you have issues.

First I want to know, Do you think Don Imus should have been fired? #1 his statements are "lite" compared to others, why is he the only one to be fired?

#2 If there is any justice Imus will get his dues at the Courts.

Do you think the government has the right to censor TV and radio?I think there should be a few CLEAR and SIMPLE guidelines like
-no naked/erotic stuff before 21h- Pay TV exempted-

Only to the very thin skinned.

We teach children that little rhyme to show them that names, in fact, cant hurt you if you dont let them.

I assure you, I know all about "the real world", and I usually couldnt care any less what names people call me.
Thats not to say there arent people whom I desire approval from, but thats a pretty small number.

Would YOU care what some crusty old radio jockey said about you, if you were a woman in college, on a basketball team with a winning season, who was on her way to a college degree, and a bright future?

If you would, I would say you have issues.

Not just names, the rhyme actually says "words" in place of "names" more often than not. Meanwhile, I can actively prove that words whether you agree with them or not, whether you let them or not, can hurt you. Even names.

How about this? You can come over and watch my kids. Then I will go to the newspaper and use the name "child molester" and we'll wait and see if that "can't hurt you".

Yes, I don't care what Imus said. He's an ass. That's not the point. The point is that making the argument that people can say whatever they want without consequences is absurd and unsupportable. No one believe that. Not even the people MAKING that argument.

"nappy-headed" whores Jigaboos ... think about it.


Didn't he say that was a Spike Lee thing? Was he referencing or quoting Spike Lee?


I think you'll find many people, especially black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are critical of the misogyny in rap music.

And yet, so much more public fuss was made about Imus than has EVER been made by these self-appointed spokesmen for All Black People about Black rappers and their poisonous misogyny. Hell, there's a whole movement afoot now in rap which exhorts Black people not to tell the police if they see any crime being committed ("Stop Snitchin'"). ANY crime. Where's the Sharpton/Jackson Outrage Machine?

Until we all realize that Sharpton and Jackson speak only for Sharpton and Jackson, there will be very little progress in race relations in this country. The episode of South Park wherein Randy Marsh is made to kiss a prominent Black spokes-oracle's ass is a very apt metaphor.


Oxford English Dictionary and the history of the phrase say it is racial. "Nappy-headed" is a derogatory slur for black people.

And you are ignoring the context. Whores. Jigaboos.

Okay, I fully accept your modern usage from the OED (irrefutable as it is). I also think Imus and his ilk are reprehensible idiots. However, they shouldn't be terminated from their positions by paranoid busniesses until it's been shown that a demonstrable decline in audience has happened. Of course businesses are going to do what they deem necessary to protect their image. That's why I'm using "shouldn't" instead of "must".

Until I can walk through the halls of my local high school and NOT hear rap-speak used by young men and accepted(!) by young women as popular slang, I'm going to insist that the free market should have been allowed to decide Imus' fate.

However, they shouldn't be terminated from their positions by paranoid busniesses until it's been shown that a demonstrable decline in audience has happened. Of course businesses are going to do what they deem necessary to protect their image. That's why I'm using "shouldn't" instead of "must".

Until I can walk through the halls of my local high school and NOT hear rap-speak used by young men and accepted(!) by young women as popular slang, I'm going to insist that the free market should have been allowed to decide Imus' fate.

It is the free market. Businesses are a part of it. They choose not just the shows with the biggest audiences but also based on creating an image. Some businesses won't advertise in Playboy, for example. Are you claiming that a business choosing to distance themselves from a certain message is not well within what they should do?

He worked for a privately owned company, they essentially have the legal right to fire people for almost any reason. Though i'm sure there are laws regarding firing due to race and stuff. I'm not American, so i'm not going to pretend i know all the fine points of your legal system. It doesn't matter whether people think he should have been fired or not, as far as i know, they were within their legal rights.

As for whether the government should be allowed to censor stuff on the TV or radio, my answer is, absolutely not. We all have the ability to turn the channel, turn the dial, or turn things off. There are v-chips and other parental locks on TVs and ways to password protect websites on computers. Parents need to take responsibility and block the things they don't want their kids to see, if it's that important to them. Most of the TV shows i watch aren't that appropriate for kids. Call me selfish, but i don't want to be deprived of watching the things i like because parents don't want their kids to see them.

Everything in this world is offensive to someone. If we keep banning things, there won't be anything left.

They broke their contract with him. While they do have a right to fire him for whatever reason, there were rules they themselves put forward that they broke in addition to beaking his contract.

I agree 100% with your 2nd and 3rd paragraph. If we censor everything that might be offensive to someone somewhere, we should all just kill ourselves now, but then suicide might offend someone too, so now we can't even be polite in trying to avoid unwanted trespasses.

And yet, so much more public fuss was made about Imus than has EVER been made by these self-appointed spokesmen for All Black People about Black rappers and their poisonous misogyny.

Bullshit. The Imus situation got more press because of Imus, but black leaders including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been speaking out against bad messages in rap for decades. In fact, Sharpton led a March for Decency in New York on May 3rd. It isn't Sharpton's fault you've heard little about it, but a lot about Imus.

Hell, there's a whole movement afoot now in rap which exhorts Black people not to tell the police if they see any crime being committed ("Stop Snitchin'"). ANY crime. Where's the Sharpton/Jackson Outrage Machine?

Actually, Sharpton and Jackson have both been in the media expressing their outrage over the "stop snitching" movement. For example, here is video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iF3K3nhd58)of Sharpton on CNN's story about the subject.

Until we all realize that Sharpton and Jackson speak only for Sharpton and Jackson, there will be very little progress in race relations in this country.

*sigh*

Reverends Sharpton and Jackson make an easy bogeyman.

The truth is, whether I like them or not, they have devoted their lives to the civil rights movement -- especially Jesse Jackson.

The idea that they are somehow to blame for the legacy and persistence of racism is really mind-boggling stupid.


The episode of South Park wherein Randy Marsh is made to kiss a prominent Black spokes-oracle's ass is a very apt metaphor.

Meh. South Park is a funny cartoon but it isn't exactly high-minded social commentary.

Note it was Imus who thought he could wash his sins away by talking to Sharpton.

Until I can walk through the halls of my local high school and NOT hear rap-speak used by young men and accepted(!) by young women as popular slang, I'm going to insist that the free market should have been allowed to decide Imus' fate.

So long as X is getting away with it, Y should get away with it too?

You know that isn't a valid argument, especially when the same people that spoke out about Imus have been criticizing rap for decades.

#1 his statements are "lite" compared to others, why is he the only one to be fired?

This argument is bogus.

Or are you saying you can identify people who have said worse on an equivalent platform and you advocate that they be fired along with Imus?

They broke their contract with him. While they do have a right to fire him for whatever reason, there were rules they themselves put forward that they broke in addition to beaking his contract.

Whether Imus has a valid claim for breach of contract is really a seperate issue -- and one I bet none of us knows very much about.

I agree 100% with your 2nd and 3rd paragraph. If we censor everything that might be offensive to someone somewhere, we should all just kill ourselves now, but then suicide might offend someone too, so now we can't even be polite in trying to avoid unwanted trespasses.

1. Classic slippery slope fallacy.

2. You'll find we've actually decreased censorship of TV and radio over the last several decades -- proving your slippery slope doesn't happen.

3. The Imus situation isn't about censorship but the subtley different issue of responsibility.

This argument is bogus. you are entitled to your opinion.

Or are you saying you can identify people who have said worse..that is exactly what I am saying.

.. you advocate that they be fired along with Imus?racism is racism.
if the World was fair.. they should been fired before him.

you are entitled to your opinion.

that is exactly what I am saying.

I say "deux poids, deux mesures."

I am advocating for the Courts to side with Imus.
but I do realize the world is not always fair.

How does what other people do have anything to do with whether or not Imus has a case? I want to hear this line of logic. And who do you think has said worse that this same company did not fire?

.. this same company did not fire?I never said they work for the same company.

I never said they work for the same company.

So how is it pertinent in whether or not this company should fire Imus? Or how the court case should be decided?

So how is it pertinent in whether or not this company should fire Imus?I dont care about this Company or Imus..

I am talking about

#1 How much regulation there should be about racism on the media?
#2 Whatever these rules are.. they should be applied to all-and-everyone equally.
#3 How are the Courts going to interpret the Clauses in Imus contract? (because these clauses are likely to be in other mass media contracts too)

I dont care about this Company or Imus..

I am talking about

#1 How much regulation there should be about racism on the media.
#2 Whatever these rules are.. they should be applied to all-and-everyone equally. )

They are. This case has nothing to do with regulation. As such, what you want from regulation will not be reflected by any court decision.


#3 How are the Courts going to interpret the Clauses in Imus contract. (because these clauses are likely to be in other mass media contracts too)

Amusing but again this is a misunderstanding. What clauses has nothing to do with whether or not they can fire him. The court will likely only examine whether this company acted consistently. Again, your claims are incongruent with what you'd like to happen. Are you trying to make a bad argument?

And yet, so much more public fuss was made about Imus than has EVER been made by these self-appointed spokesmen for All Black People about Black rappers and their poisonous misogyny.

Look--it's not Sharpton's and Jackson's fault that the cameras don't show up when they criticize rap music, but do when Imus says something boneheaded. There's a lot of people who call Sharpton and Jackson media whores, and the accusation has some merit, but the media's on the other side of that equation, and they're more than a little inconsistent when it comes to covering this kind of story. They don't show up just because Sharpton and Jackson have something to say, regardless of what their critics claim.

This case has nothing to do with regulation.it should.
.

...regulation will not be reflected by any court decision.it should.
.


Amusing but again this is a misunderstanding. whatever that means.
.

What clauses has nothing to do with whether or not they can fire him. it should.
.

The court will likely only examine whether this company acted consistently. Again, your claims are incongruent with what you'd like to happen. Are you trying to make a bad argument?whatever that means. :rolleyes:

Look, if Al Sharpton can use the radio to wrongfully accuse THREE INNOCENT people of RAPE, then Don Imus can say what he wants, as long as there is somebody willing to fund what he does. But hey, at least Don Imus made a personal apology for his remarks. Sharpton has yet to apologize to the three men whose lives he tore up based on the simple fact that he is a self-serving degenerate so swallowed up in his own pride that he barely deserves the title of "Reverend."

Look, if Al Sharpton can use the radio to wrongfully accuse THREE INNOCENT people of RAPE, then Don Imus can say what he wants, as long as there is somebody willing to fund what he does. But hey, at least Don Imus made a personal apology for his remarks. Sharpton has yet to apologize to the three men whose lives he tore up based on the simple fact that he is a self-serving degenerate so swallowed up in his own pride that he barely deserves the title of "Reverend."

So, if the accuser has done something tawdry in his past, then the accused gets off scot-free? Remind me to have Newt Gingrich call me out if I ever get caught cheating on my girlfriend.

it should.
.

it should.
.

whatever that means.
.

it should.
.

whatever that means. :rolleyes:

What? I know you're going out of your way to be unclear, but please explain why this case SHOULD have to do with regulation, since none was employed in the firing and none exists that could be employed.

So, if the accuser has done something tawdry in his past, then the accused gets off scot-free?

Look, Al Sharpton accusing three people of rape with basically no evidence except one person, that is unacceptable.

Look, Al Sharpton accusing three people of rape with basically no evidence except one person, that is unacceptable.

How is that a defense for Imus?

Look, Al Sharpton accusing three people of rape with basically no evidence except one person, that is unacceptable.

I agree completely. I still don't see how that makes his criticism of Don Imus any less valid. Sharpton's a dick, but he's also right on this issue. The two are not mutually exclusive, which is what the above poster was suggesting.

I dont care about this Company or Imus..

I am talking about

#1 How much regulation there should be about racism on the media?
#2 Whatever these rules are.. they should be applied to all-and-everyone equally.
#3 How are the Courts going to interpret the Clauses in Imus contract? (because these clauses are likely to be in other mass media contracts too)

First, you rather conspicuously avoid answering the question put to you by both Jocabia and I: who are these people who allegedly said worse than Imus and should be fired?

Second, this has nothing whatsoever to do with government regulation. Your saying "it should" is simply nonsense. This occurred entirely within the free marketplace without any government intervention whatsoever. Unless you are advocating government intervention, you are merely raising a red herring.

Third, who is it that these alleged rules aren't being applied to? And what are the alleged rules?

Fourth, the issue of whether there has been a breach of contract is likely to be specific to the contract at hand and is unlikely to have much impact beyond the Imus case. Again, your assertion that "it should" is rather duplicitous.

What? I know you're going out of your way to be unclear.your last post is unclear to me.. But I am not going to say "you are going out of your way for me."
.

but please explain why this case SHOULD have to do with regulation.Racism in the mass media should be regulated.
.

(no regulation) was employed in the firing..there should be.

(no regulation) exists that could be employed.there should be. (regulation should exist)

First, you rather conspicuously avoid answering the question put to you by both Jocabia and I:

You noticed that too?

First, you rather conspicuously avoid answering the question put to you by both Jocabia and I: who are these people who allegedly said worse than Imus and should be fired?

I'm going to bail him out on this and suggest he's talking about JV and Elvis, who were fired over something similar involving a Chinese restaurant, and perhaps Opie & Anthony, who have been suspended for 30 days over a bit where a homeless man went on and on about raping Condoleeza Rice until she was dead.

So, if the accuser has done something tawdry in his past, then the accused gets off scot-free? Remind me to have Newt Gingrich call me out if I ever get caught cheating on my girlfriend.

No, but I do think that a man that claims to be a Christian reverend should remember that Jesus stated "Let the one amongst you without sin cast the first stone." John 8:7. Or Matthew 7:3, "Why do you perceive the splinter in your brother's eye, but not the wooden beam in your own?" Before demanding an apology, one should generally apologize to those that one has wronged. Or at least, that's what Christian reverends, such as Al Sharpton, are supposedly preaching. His position is one that inherently requires him to be a concilliatory figure, not a divisive crusader.

Yeah, Don Imus was an ass. He insulted a well managed and skillful team of scholar athletes with a stupid and hateful remark. But going back to Don Imus's right to say that, yeah, he does have the right to say it. He has that right because there are people that made remarks that devestated the lives of three young men that did nothing wrong.

Oh, and for the record, again Don Imus apologized. Al Sharpton did not. Imus recognized that he over-stepped his boundaries of the power of his speech. Sharpton did not do this. Three people spent a year with the public hanging over them due to remarks made by Sharpton. Where's the Christian reverend's apology?

Look, Al Sharpton accusing three people of rape with basically no evidence except one person, that is unacceptable.

1. Um. Problem. Since when is one person's testimony not sufficient to support a case of rape. Are you advocating a return to the time when a woman's testimony had to be corroborated to support a rape accusation?

2. Even granting that Sharpton was out of line in the Tawana Brawley case (which I agree he was), what does a twenty-year-old case involving Sharpton have to do with the outrageous and despicable nature of Imus's remarks?

your last post is unclear to me.. But I am not going to say "you are going out of your way for me."
.

Racism in the mass media should be regulated.
.

there should be.

there should be. (regulation should exist)

Why should the government get involved in censorship, particularly given the first amendment? How would we benefit by creating legislation and using the government's nuclear weapon when the market's sniper bullet worked so much better here?

Look, if Al Sharpton can use the radio to wrongfully accuse THREE INNOCENT people of RAPE, then Don Imus can say what he wants, as long as there is somebody willing to fund what he does. But hey, at least Don Imus made a personal apology for his remarks. Sharpton has yet to apologize to the three men whose lives he tore up based on the simple fact that he is a self-serving degenerate so swallowed up in his own pride that he barely deserves the title of "Reverend."

1. Um. Imus was fired by his employers. He may be able to find someone else to fund what he does, but his current problem is that his employers no longer wished to support him. So, given what you've said, you should have no problem with the situation.

2. As for Sharpton and the 1987 thing, I responded above. It simply isn't relevant.

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Imus go to Sharpton looking for absolution?

Why should the government get involved in censorship, particularly given the first amendment? How would we benefit by creating legislation and using the government's nuclear weapon when the market's sniper bullet worked so much better here?

The government does get involved in censorship to a limited degree. Libel and slander aren't protected speech, and while it's not censorship, the FCC is empowered to fine companies that allow obscenity in their broadcasts, though it's never quite clear what's considered obscene.

No, but I do think that a man that claims to be a Christian reverend should remember that Jesus stated "Let the one amongst you without sin cast the first stone." John 8:7. Or Matthew 7:3, "Why do you perceive the splinter in your brother's eye, but not the wooden beam in your own?" Before demanding an apology, one should generally apologize to those that one has wronged. Or at least, that's what Christian reverends, such as Al Sharpton, are supposedly preaching.

So you can criticize how good a Christian Al Sharpton is. So fucking what? One could ask whether you are without sin to be casting stones at Sharpton. It is a rather silly game.

Regardless, how is it relevant to Imus and what he said and what price he should pay for saying it?

BTW, I don't recall specifically, but did Sharpton demand an apology prior to Imus's attempt to apologize to Sharpton? See the difference?

1. Um. Problem. Since when is one person's testimony not sufficient to support a case of rape. Are you advocating a return to the time when a woman's testimony had to be corroborated to support a rape accusation?

Look. Their needs to be EVIDENCE. That's how our justice system works. ONE testimony is not sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah, Don Imus was an ass. He insulted a well managed and skillful team of scholar athletes with a stupid and hateful remark. But going back to Don Imus's right to say that, yeah, he does have the right to say it. He has that right because there are people that made remarks that devestated the lives of three young men that did nothing wrong.

Holy Non Sequitur Batman!

Imus has a right to insult and demean the Rutger's Women's Basketball Team because of remarks someone totally unconnected to them said 20 years ago?!?!

Look. Their needs to be EVIDENCE. That's how our justice system works. ONE testimony is not sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wait. Sharpton is part of the justice system?

First, you rather conspicuously avoid answering the question put to you by both Jocabia and I: who are these people who allegedly said worse than Imus and should be fired?
You want names.. you will get them.
I need some time.. but i will make time and do the research.
.

Second, this has nothing whatsoever to do with government regulation. it should.
.

Your saying "it should" is simply nonsense.You are entitled to your opinion.
.

This occurred entirely within the free marketplace.wait.. are you saying the "free marketplace" cannot be regulated?
.

Unless you are advocating government intervention, you are merely raising a red herring.I have some breaking news for you: Regulation IS government intervention.
.
.
.
Third, And what are the alleged rules?When I say "there should be..".. that is what I mean.
.

who is it that these alleged rules aren't being applied to? the other people promoting racism.. you already asked me for the names.. remember.?
.


Fourth, the issue of whether there has been a breach of contract is likely to be specific to the contract at hand and is unlikely to have much impact beyond the Imus case. Like I said..
these clauses are likely to exist in other broadcaster contracts.. Jurisprudence and all.

Again, your assertion that "it should" is rather duplicitous.Again, You are entitled to your opinion.

Look. Their needs to be EVIDENCE. That's how our justice system works. ONE testimony is not sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

was he part of the trial? Was he called to testify? Was he put under oath?

No? then what's your point?

And as an aside, more than one rape case has been made by a single piece of testimony.

Look. Their needs to be EVIDENCE. That's how our justice system works. ONE testimony is not sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm quite familiar with how our justice system works.

And the testimony of one person CAN BE sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the Tawana Brawley case, the victim never actually testified to the grand jury. But it turned out her allegations taken with other facts were insufficient to prove even that guilt was probable to a grand jury. But that doesn't mean that one person's testimony cannot be sufficient to support a conviction.

It has happened. And it should happen.

You want names.. you will get them.
I need some time.. but i will make time and do the research.
.

it should.
.

You are entitled to your opinion.
.

wait.. are you saying the "free marketplace" cannot be regulated?
.

I have some breaking news for you: Regulation IS government intervention.
.
.
.
When I say "there should be..".. that is what I mean.
.

the other people promoting racism.. you already asked me for the names.. remember.?
.

it should.
.

Again, You are entitled to your opinion.

Dude, this is so blatantly nonsensical. Why would specific contract clauses apply to other contracts without them? Why would the government intervene when there is no problem? This case went the way you'd like it to.

wait.. are you saying the "free marketplace" cannot be regulated?

Um....duh? That's what free market means

1. Um. Imus was fired by his employers. He may be able to find someone else to fund what he does, but his current problem is that his employers no longer wished to support him. So, given what you've said, you should have no problem with the situation.

I don't, I was pointing out that Imus has the right to say that, and get apid for it, if people will pay him to do so. I was clarifying my argument, and again, I have no problem with Imus's job status, since his advertisers pulled.

2. As for Sharpton and the 1987 thing, I responded above. It simply isn't relevant.

Has Sharpton apologized for his remarks on The O'Reilly Factor reagrding the Duke boys? No.

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Imus go to Sharpton looking for absolution?

So you can criticize how good a Christian Al Sharpton is. So fucking what? One could ask whether you are without sin to be casting stones at Sharpton. It is a rather silly game.

Regardless, how is it relevant to Imus and what he said and what price he should pay for saying it?

BTW, I don't recall specifically, but did Sharpton demand an apology prior to Imus's attempt to apologize to Sharpton? See the difference?

Read my full quote. But if not, then here, I'll repost the important part:

Yeah, Don Imus was an ass. He insulted a well managed and skillful team of scholar athletes with a stupid and hateful remark. But going back to Don Imus's right to say that, yeah, he does have the right to say it. He has that right because there are people that made remarks that devestated the lives of three young men that did nothing wrong.

Again, I'm alluding to the Duke case here.

Oh, and for the record, again Don Imus apologized. Al Sharpton did not. Imus recognized that he over-stepped his boundaries of the power of his speech. Sharpton did not do this. Three people spent a year with the public hanging over them due to remarks made by Sharpton. Where's the Christian reverend's apology?

Imus: self-motivated (or his PR team) apology for his remarks, and a personal apology to the Rutgers team.

Sharpton: No apology to Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, or david Evans, personally or on air.

it should happen.indeed.

Imus: self-motivated (or his PR team) apology for his remarks, and a personal apology to the Rutgers team.

Sharpton: No apology to Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, or david Evans, personally or on air.

Yes, you've said that already. Now please answer the question posed to you numerous times.

What the hell does one have to do with the other? How, in ANY WAY, does Sharpton's lack of apology affect what should happen to Imus?

Or, to put it another way, when discussing what should happen to Imus, what the fuck does it matter what did or did not happen to another person, in another circumstance, in another profession, employed by other people?

Yes, you've said that already. Now please answer the question posed to you numerous times.

What the hell does one have to do with the other? How, in ANY WAY, does Sharpton's lack of apology affect what should happen to Imus?

Or, to put it another way, when discussing what should happen to Imus, what the fuck does it matter what did or did not happen to another person, in another circumstance, in another profession, employed by other people?

What I'm curious about is how Imus got this right from Sharpton's mistake? I wonder what mistakes other people have made that somehow give me rights.

What I'm curious about is how Imus got this right from Sharpton's mistake? I wonder what mistakes other people have made that somehow give me rights.

it's an amusing concept isn't it? Your rights depending on the rights of others being abused. I guess the trick is to hang with real scumbags

"excuse me your honor, my friend shot 3 people during a bank robbery, so I had the right to rob the register at the gas station..."

You want names.. you will get them.
I need some time.. but i will make time and do the research.

You asserted that there were those whose words made Imus's infractions seem relatively light. I mistakenly assumed you actually had someone in mind, rather than talking about mere hypotheticals.

it should.

If you are going to argue for the government regulation speech related to race, fine. Make your argument. Simply making vague statements of "it should" is hardly moving the discussion along.

wait.. are you saying the "free marketplace" cannot be regulated?

Did I say that? No.

But when the market acts without government regulation, it is the free market acting.

I have some breaking news for you: Regulation IS government intervention.

And there was no regulation or government intervention involved in this case.

You seem to be advocating some such regulation, but you've yet to put forth any details or any supporting argument.

Dude, this is so blatantly nonsensical. Why would specific contract clauses a... you need to re-read post #65, its you post.. reply #3 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12666942&postcount=66)
.


Why would the government intervene when there is no problem?if there is no problem.. then why all the Jalapenos calientes?.
.

This case went the way you'd like it to.then why are you running the full enchilada?

you need to re-read post #65, its you post.. reply #3
.

if there is no problem.. then why all the Jalapenos calientes?.
.

then why all you running the full enchilada?

have you just slipped full force into sheer nonsensical bullshit now?

you need to re-read post #65, its you post.. reply #3 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12666942&postcount=66)
.

if there is no problem.. then why all the Jalapenos calientes?.
.

then why are you running the full enchilada?

This is as compelling as every other post, thought it does have the bonus of making me laugh.

Yes, you've said that already. Now please answer the question posed to you numerous times.

What the hell does one have to do with the other? How, in ANY WAY, does Sharpton's lack of apology affect what should happen to Imus?

Or, to put it another way, when discussing what should happen to Imus, what the fuck does it matter what did or did not happen to another person, in another circumstance, in another profession, employed by other people?

Because Sharpton, with his own radio show, and his own media appearances, is essentially one of Imus's peers (or was, but Imus got fired, so pardon the slight missteps regarding specific nomenclature). Thus, if Sharpton can ruin the lives of three people by on-air remorks, then Imus definitely has the right to say "nappy-headed hoes" on the radio. Imus's remarks were less damaging, and will not be helping a DA prosecute the Rutgers team.

In America, where equal rights exist, the right of Sharpton to make remarks that cause a lot of damage means that Imus has the same right to make reamrks, especially if they're not as damaging. That was the bit of common sense that I thought people realized. If Sharpton does not lose his media credentials for doing something worse than what Imus did, then Imus should not either. Generally, murderers get more severe sentences than burglers. If one has the right to break somebody else's arm, than another person should have the right to slightly bruise the shoulder. Especially if the bruise-maker apologizes, and the arm-breaker doesn't.

Note, though, that I'm not talking about anything realting to the CIA or information gathering techniques that may or may not be carried out in the pursuit for information.

have you just slipped full force into sheer nonsensical bullshit now?

It's not less informative than "it should".

What I'm curious about is how Imus got this right from Sharpton's mistake? I wonder what mistakes other people have made that somehow give me rights.

Like I said earlier, if I ever get busted getting a hummer from someone other than my girlfriend, I just need to get Newt Gingrich to publicly castigate me and I'm home free--under that logic.

I don't, I was pointing out that Imus has the right to say that, and get apid for it, if people will pay him to do so. I was clarifying my argument, and again, I have no problem with Imus's job status, since his advertisers pulled.

Your argument rather conveniently appears to involve not answering any of the points raised against your assertions.

If you have no problem with Imus being fired, wtf is your point?

Has Sharpton apologized for his remarks on The O'Reilly Factor reagrding the Duke boys? No.

For what exactly should Sharpton apologize and why? You need to be specific.


Read my full quote. But if not, then here, I'll repost the important part:

Re-read my responses. with the exception of the timing, they all apply and you've just ignored them.

Imus: self-motivated (or his PR team) apology for his remarks, and a personal apology to the Rutgers team.

Sharpton: No apology to Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, or david Evans, personally or on air.

1. For the third time, didn't Imus go to Sharpton looking for absolution rather than Sharpton going to Imus to demand an apology?

2. You have yet to show that Sharpton owes an apology to Mssrs. Finnerty, Seligmann, and Evans.

3. You have yet to show how Sharpton's behavior is in any way relevant to Imus's conduct.

Because Sharpton, with his own radio show, and his own media appearances, is essentially one of Imus's peers (or was, but Imus got fired, so pardon the slight missteps regarding specific nomenclature). Thus, if Sharpton can ruin the lives of three people by on-air remorks, then Imus definitely has the right to say "nappy-headed hoes" on the radio. Imus's remarks were less damaging, and will not be helping a DA prosecute the Rutgers team.

In America, where equal rights exist, the right of Sharpton to make remarks that cause a lot of damage means that Imus has the same right to make reamrks, especially if they're not as damaging. That was the bit of common sense that I thought people realized. If Sharpton does not lose his media credentials for doing something worse than what Imus did, then Imus should not either. Generally, murderers get more severe sentences than burglers. If one has the right to break somebody else's arm, than another person should have the right to slightly bruise the shoulder. Especially if the bruise-maker apologizes, and the arm-breaker doesn't.

Note, though, that I'm not talking about anything realting to the CIA or information gathering techniques that may or may not be carried out in the pursuit for information.

We're not talking about media credentials here, which neither Imus nor Sharpton had. We're talking about sponsors, which Imus lost, and Sharpton didn't. Free market and all that good shit.

Because Sharpton, with his own radio show, and his own media appearances, is essentially one of Imus's peers (or was, but Imus got fired, so pardon the slight missteps regarding specific nomenclature). Thus, if Sharpton can ruin the lives of three people by on-air remorks, then Imus definitely has the right to say "nappy-headed hoes" on the radio. Imus's remarks were less damaging, and will not be helping a DA prosecute the Rutgers team.

In America, where equal rights exist, the right of Sharpton to make remarks that cause a lot of damage means that Imus has the same right to make reamrks, especially if they're not as damaging. That was the bit of common sense that I thought people realized. If Sharpton does not lose his media credentials for doing something worse than what Imus did, then Imus should not either. Generally, murderers get more severe sentences than burglers. If one has the right to break somebody else's arm, than another person should have the right to slightly bruise the shoulder. Especially if the bruise-maker apologizes, and the arm-breaker doesn't.

Note, though, that I'm not talking about anything realting to the CIA or information gathering techniques that may or may not be carried out in the pursuit for information.


This has NOTHING to do with rights. He was fired by his boss for doing an unsatisfactory performance that cost them money. Read that again: it has NOTHING to do with rights.

-snip-

um....who in this thread every said he did not have the legal right to do it? For that matter, have any criminal charges been filed? Civil suits been brought? At what point has anyone said he didn't have the right to?

Why are you wasting so much energy trying to jump through so many convoluted hoops to defeat an argument nobody has made?

Why are you wasting so much energy trying to jump through so many convoluted hoops to defeat an argument nobody has made?

Because it's easier than admitting that he hadn't actually thought out his stance ahead of time?

Because Sharpton, with his own radio show, and his own media appearances, is essentially one of Imus's peers (or was, but Imus got fired, so pardon the slight missteps regarding specific nomenclature). Thus, if Sharpton can ruin the lives of three people by on-air remorks, then Imus definitely has the right to say "nappy-headed hoes" on the radio. Imus's remarks were less damaging, and will not be helping a DA prosecute the Rutgers team.

In America, where equal rights exist, the right of Sharpton to make remarks that cause a lot of damage means that Imus has the same right to make reamrks, especially if they're not as damaging. That was the bit of common sense that I thought people realized. If Sharpton does not lose his media credentials for doing something worse than what Imus did, then Imus should not either. Generally, murderers get more severe sentences than burglers. If one has the right to break somebody else's arm, than another person should have the right to slightly bruise the shoulder. Especially if the bruise-maker apologizes, and the arm-breaker doesn't.

Note, though, that I'm not talking about anything realting to the CIA or information gathering techniques that may or may not be carried out in the pursuit for information.

This is Kafkaesque. Your thinking is so twisted I can only bring myself to address a couple of points.

First, despite what you imply, I doubt you can show that comments made by Sharpton "ruin[ed] the lives of three people." Sharpton alone was not responsible for the Duke Lacrosse team case. To imply that his role was significant is just silly.

Secondly, the "he got away with X, so I should be able to get away with at least X" doesn't work in the adult world anymore than it did in the sandbox.

You asserted that there were those whose words made Imus's infractions seem relatively light. I mistakenly assumed you actually had someone in mind, rather than talking about mere hypotheticals.I ve heard the Radio-clips, on a web site.. they were ugly. Worse than the statement used to fire Imus.
I did not take their names down.
.

If you are going to argue for the government regulation speech related to race, fine.My viewpoint is for the regulation of the Media on hate/racism.
But I do not want to "argue".
.

Did I say that? No.good.
Had you said Yes, It would make me feel bad.
I rather you.. not lose credibility.
.

But when the market acts without government regulation, it is the free market acting.
water is wet.. etc.
.

And there was no regulation or government intervention involved in this case.we know that.
.


You seem to be advocating some such regulation, but you've yet to put forth any details or any supporting argument.Like I said.. "I dont wanna argue"

Really? Jacobia, Nazz, based on posts previous to my initial post, I was under the impression that this thread had shifted to a debate on media rights, oh, and not to mention, the initial questions about 1st Amendment rights and all that. I already stated that from the business perspective, firing Imus was the smart, justifiable, and allowable, nay, preferable thing to do. Yes, Imus lost his bosses money. That was never really my argument, rather, that since we were getting into the rights of speaking itself, I chose to illustrate what appears to be a double standard of responsibility, one that can not exist when debating on rights if there is no clear reason regarding that double standard (a la jury responsibilities of a five year old and a twenty-five year old, verses that of two twenty-five year olds).

If you didn't catch my numerous remarks that firing Don Imus was both permissible and justifiable, let me state it again: Since Don Imus lost CBS and MSNBC money, firing him was the smart financial move.

I simply chose to further explore a topic already being opened, that of media responsibility, along with how people express it. You may not have been talking about Rights and Responsibilities. I was. It had been introduced, so I explored it further. Sorry if I brought up a relevant and related way of looking at what has happened. I'll try to stick to narrower, more repressive venues from now on. :(:confused:

This is Kafkaesque.

I thought I was feeling vaguely like a cockaroach...

Secondly, the "he got away with X, so I should be able to get away with at least X" doesn't work in the adult world anymore than it did in the sandbox.

Not to mention the fact that from a rights standpoint, they both got away with it, as neither of them were prosecuted for their protected speech.

If you mean that one got fired and not the other, to say one "should" get away with it if another got away with it, is effectively telling employers that they need to seceede their authority, due to the choices OTHER, sometimes competing, employers make.

Which is even more nonsensical than where we were when we started.

I thought I was feeling vaguely like a cockaroach...

Better start carrying around spandex and a mask. Can never be too careful.

I ve heard the Radio-clips, on a web site.. they were ugly. Worse than the statement used to fire Imus.
I did not take their names down.

Someone said something, once. I don't remember who...and I won't say what they said. But someone did, and it was ugly.

My viewpoint is for the regulation of the Media on hate/racism.
But I do not want to "argue".

Then why are you still talking?

good.
Had you said Yes, It would make me feel bad.
I rather you.. not lose credibility.


Between the two of you, guess who has more credibility in these parts? I imagine that taking the opposite of whatever position you take would on the whole make him more credible


Like I said.. "I dont wanna argue"

Then again, why are you still here?

I simply chose to further explore a topic already being opened, that of media responsibility, along with how people express it. You may not have been talking about Rights and Responsibilities. I was. It had been introduced, so I explored it further. Sorry if I brought up a relevant and related way of looking at what has happened. I'll try to stick to narrower, more repressive venues from now on. :(:confused:

But...what about it? Sharpton's commence were protected speech. Imus' comments were protected speech...

That's pretty much it. If you wanted to introduce some hypothetical universe where sharpton's comments were protected speech and imus' were not, and say that this would be unfair and wrong as Sharpton's comments were at least as harmful.....well....sure, ok. I guess I can agree to that...

have you just slipped full force into sheer nonsensical bullshit now?ouch, that hurts.

First I want to know, Do you think Don Imus should have been fired? If taking away Imus' nationwide soapbox is limiting his freedom of speech then we are all in fact far more muzzled then he is. Because of course we have no access to the airwaves at all.
The Imus question is a red herring. If low ad sales are an acceptable reason to take away a commentator's media forum, why is a history of vicious racist outbursts (especially when these are followed by a withdrawal of advertising contracts) not an acceptable reason to do so?

If you really have your underoos in a knot about Imus' firing, then you should aim your wrath at the real cause of the vast majority of mass media censorship in this country: the private ownership of the broadcast airwaves.

Then why are you still talking?
...
Then again, why are you still here?I am free to give my opinion.
This is a free country.
...free to give my opinion.. and(at the same time) refuse to argue .. and/or refuse to defend everything I say.


My opinion has not changed:
There should be regulation for the media on Racism.
.

Between the two of you, guess who has more credibility in these parts? He has.
In my book his credibility and knowledge are top of the class.
.


Someone said something, once. I don't remember who...and I won't say what they said. But someone did, and it was ugly.
You seem to say I am lying.
.

I imagine that taking the opposite of whatever position you take would on the whole make him more credibleYou seem to say "everything Occean says is a Lie."

I am free to give my opinion.
This is a free country.
...free to give my opinion.. and(at the same time) refuse to argue .. and/or refuse to defend everything I say.


My opinion has not changed:
There should be regulation for the media on Racism.
.

He has.
In my book his credibility and knowledge are top of the class.
.


You seem to say I am lying.
.

You seem to say "everything Occean says is a Lie."

Not credible is not the same as a lie. Something that is wrong is equally incredible. Meanwhile, so you came to a debate forum and you're going to act annoyed becuase people don't accept your claims without support? I got mad yesterday because my cousin tackled me while we were playing football. Oh, wait, that would be ludicrous.

We're not talking about media credentials here, which neither Imus nor Sharpton had. We're talking about sponsors, which Imus lost, and Sharpton didn't. Free market and all that good shit.

Of course, it's not really free market. It's a few powerful manipulators of market forces throwing their weight around. Imus' audience didn't go anywhere, just the sponsors.

Of course, it's not really free market. It's a few powerful manipulators of market forces throwing their weight around. Imus' audience didn't go anywhere, just the sponsors.

Advertisers are customers. They are purchasing a service. They chose to go elsewhere because they didn't feel they were getting a service they approved of. The audience isn't the only part of the market.

... and you're going to act annoyed becuase people don't accept your claims without support? I am free to have a different opinion..
You are free to have a different opinion..

You dont have to adopt mine !!

There is not rule that says: "the two of us have to argue until one of us imposes his opinion on the other"

I am free to have a different opinion..
You are free to have a different opinion..

You dont have to adopt mine !!

There is not rule that says: "the two of us have to argue until one of us imposes his opinion on the other"

It's a debate forum. There is a rule in debate that everything you say is not credible until you give a reason for it to be.

You should learn what an opinion is. I like taupe is an opinion. The judge should decide this case X way is an assertion. You should learn the difference.

It's a debate forum.so?
are you going to get me deated for not arguing to death?

be my guest.

You should learn what an opinion is. I like taupe is an opinion. The judge should decide this case X way is an assertion. You should learn the difference.My opinion is that the judge should decide against the broadcaster.
My opinion is that there should be regulation for racism.

.. I dont like taupe ;)

so?
are you going to get me deated for not arguing to death?

be my guest.

Ha. I love the fallacies you employ. Apparently the options are make assertions without any credibility or support or "arguing to death". How useful. Meanwhile, I didn't claim it's against the rules. However, you've essentially showed up and the football field asked to be on the field and then said you're unwilling to touch the ball, or tackle, or run, or move, or do anything that should make anyone want you to be there.

My opinion is that the judge should decide against the broadcaster.
My opinion is that there should be regulation for racism.

.. I dont like taupe ;)

Your opinion is not credible because we've not ever been given any reason to think that your beliefs have any rational support. You have stated that your beliefs deserve no examination. Fine. I agree with you.

Keep refusing to move. That's very helpful. "I'm allowed to be here and refuse to play" is just a silly claim.

Amusingly, you're arguing right now. The difference being it's allowed you to avoid actually supporting your claims. Again, how helpful of you.

No, but I do think that a man that claims to be a Christian reverend should remember that Jesus stated "Let the one amongst you without sin cast the first stone." John 8:7. Or Matthew 7:3, "Why do you perceive the splinter in your brother's eye, but not the wooden beam in your own?" Before demanding an apology, one should generally apologize to those that one has wronged. Or at least, that's what Christian reverends, such as Al Sharpton, are supposedly preaching. His position is one that inherently requires him to be a concilliatory figure, not a divisive crusader.

Yeah, Don Imus was an ass. He insulted a well managed and skillful team of scholar athletes with a stupid and hateful remark. But going back to Don Imus's right to say that, yeah, he does have the right to say it. He has that right because there are people that made remarks that devestated the lives of three young men that did nothing wrong.

Oh, and for the record, again Don Imus apologized. Al Sharpton did not. Imus recognized that he over-stepped his boundaries of the power of his speech. Sharpton did not do this. Three people spent a year with the public hanging over them due to remarks made by Sharpton. Where's the Christian reverend's apology?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Saying racist things should not be illegal. But only SAYING them. If you, say, don't hire someone because you're racist, that should be illegal, but otherwise...

Think about it this way: If the N-bomb was banned, we wouldn't have "Holiday In Cambodia".

Saying racist things should not be illegal. But only SAYING them.

In any circumstances, ever?

Advertisers are customers. They are purchasing a service. They chose to go elsewhere because they didn't feel they were getting a service they approved of. The audience isn't the only part of the market.

But it wasn't the service they disapproved of. The audience didn't go anywhere, so the advertising didn't stop working. They sacrificed the sound marketing decision for the sake of what they saw as a moral one.

If the audience had chosen to stop listening to Imus because of what he said, or non-listeners chose to stop buying the products advertised, then it would have been a marketing decision.

If you choose to squint hard enough you can see almost anything you want, but the big picture is not one of market forces prevailing. It is one of market forces being manipulated.

But it wasn't the service they disapproved of. The audience didn't go anywhere, so the advertising didn't stop working. They sacrificed the sound marketing decision for the sake of what they saw as a moral one.

If the audience had chosen to stop listening to Imus because of what he said, or non-listeners chose to stop buying the products advertised, then it would have been a marketing decision.

If you choose to squint hard enough you can see almost anything you want, but the big picture is not one of market forces prevailing. It is one of market forces being manipulated.

Again, ignoring the facts doesn't help your argument. The show is a part of the service. If I were advertising my company on a television show and an episode suddenly endorsed racism or child molesting or mysogyny, I would pull my ads the next day. Guaranteed. Because my name is being associated with that program. It's a part of the service that cannot be seperated. I would choose where I advertise for that specific reason. My image is as important as the services I provide. It's something I'll spend years building to improve my attractiveness to the consumer. Reliability. Trust. Strength. Integrity. I have to convey that message because consumers trust me with fortunes. That is a part of the market. It is a part of my service. And is a part of what I purchase in advertising. That's why some company's advertisements show them planting a tree or building a school

You want to pretend this is my right as an advertising consumer and an effect of the free market, but pretending is all you are doing. Getting the message to the consumer isn't the only goal. Getting the message to the consumer untarnished and in a fashion I approve of is.

Bullshit. The Imus situation got more press because of Imus, but black leaders including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been speaking out against bad messages in rap for decades. In fact, Sharpton led a March for Decency in New York on May 3rd. It isn't Sharpton's fault you've heard little about it, but a lot about Imus.



Actually, Sharpton and Jackson have both been in the media expressing their outrage over the "stop snitching" movement. For example, here is video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iF3K3nhd58)of Sharpton on CNN's story about the subject.



*sigh*

Reverends Sharpton and Jackson make an easy bogeyman.

The truth is, whether I like them or not, they have devoted their lives to the civil rights movement -- especially Jesse Jackson.

The idea that they are somehow to blame for the legacy and persistence of racism is really mind-boggling stupid.




Meh. South Park is a funny cartoon but it isn't exactly high-minded social commentary.

Note it was Imus who thought he could wash his sins away by talking to Sharpton.



So long as X is getting away with it, Y should get away with it too?

You know that isn't a valid argument, especially when the same people that spoke out about Imus have been criticizing rap for decades.

Very well, and well said/linked, too, but I ask you -- how many Black producers, rappers, etc. have lost their gigs as a result of anything the Reverends have done? You have to admit that it's at least twice as easy to get a White person fired or ostracized for making racial comments than it is to get anyone of color fired or similarly ostracized.

Very well, and well said/linked, too, but I ask you -- how many Black producers, rappers, etc. have lost their gigs as a result of anything the Reverends have done? You have to admit that it's at least twice as easy to get a White person fired or ostracized for making racial comments than it is to get anyone of color fired or similarly ostracized.

Again, you're talking about the reaction to his message, not the message itself. Pretending like he is responsible for how people react when says the same thing about two different people is to ignore the effect of his audience.

Thou sayest.

I can only judge by what I see and hear. When the turd in the punchbowl that is mainstram rap culture is addressed in a way that actually has consequences, I'll gladly agree. Until then, sorry.

Thou sayest.

I can only judge by what I see and hear. When the turd in the punchbowl that is mainstram rap culture is addressed in a way that actually has consequences, I'll gladly agree. Until then, sorry.

So no matter how much I rail against rap it's my fault if no one listens? You have to know that stretches the limits of logic to breaking.

So no matter how much I rail against rap it's my fault if no one listens? You have to know that stretches the limits of logic to breaking.

Not at all. Unless you don't rail against it enough or publicly enough. All I'm saying is look at the context and the amount of unreasonable poison spewed by the average rapper compared to Imus. The Reverends are afraid of being called Uncle Toms. Imus doesn't even come close, and I don't even like the guy and am glad he's gone.

Now if the entire culture surrounding and engendering words like "ho" and the related treatment of women (and each other, for fuck's sake) could be similarly addressed with similar results, then I'd be the first on the Reverends' bandwagon.

Not at all. Unless you don't rail against it enough or publicly enough. All I'm saying is look at the context and the amount of unreasonable poison spewed by the average rapper compared to Imus. The Reverends are afraid of being called Uncle Toms. Imus doesn't even come close, and I don't even like the guy and am glad he's gone.

Now if the entire culture surrounding and engendering words like "ho" and the related treatment of women (and each other, for fuck's sake) could be similarly addressed with similar results, then I'd be the first on the Reverends' bandwagon.

Ok, we asked you to support your claims that they don't do it "enough". You used as support that they have affected a change. I pointed out that that doesn't actually support your claim and that I could do it "enough" and still not effect a change and asked if you would still blame me. You say "no, I wouldn't" but blame them because they haven't done it "enough".

So essientially, they haven't done it enough because they haven't created a change because they haven't done it enough and so on. And each time I attack one of those leaky points, to use your metaphor (Thanks for that), you fallaciously simply move to another part of your circular argument.

Again, you're blaming the reverends in the bolded part for whether or not they're successful not for their efforts, but claiming that it's there efforts that are the problem. That is poor logic.